This study investigates the impact of Free-to-Publish (F2P) versus Pay-to-Publish (P2P) models in dermatology journals, focusing on their differences in terms of journal metrics, Article Processing Charges (APCs), and Open Access (OA) status. Utilizing k-means clustering, the research evaluates dermatology journals based on SCImago Journal Rankings (SJR), H-Index, and Impact Factor (IF), and examines the correlation between these metrics, APCs, and OA status (Full or Hybrid). Data from the SCImago Journal Rank and Journal Citation Report databases were used, and metrics from 106 journals were normalized and grouped into three tiers.The study reveals a higher proportion of F2P journals, especially in higher-tier journals, indicating a preference for quality-driven research acceptance. Conversely, a rising proportion of P2P journals in lower tiers suggests potential bias towards the ability to pay. This disparity poses challenges for researchers from less-funded institutions or those early in their careers. The study also finds significant differences in APCs between F2P and P2P journals, with hybrid OA being more common in F2P.Conclusively, the study highlights the disparities in dermatology journals between F2P and P2P models and underscores the need for further research into authorship demographics and institutional affiliations in these journals. It also establishes the effectiveness of k-means clustering as a standardized method for assessing journal quality, which can reduce reliance on potentially biased individual metrics.

OBJECTIVE: The number of cerebrovascular (CV) surgeons has grown with the rise of endovascular neurosurgery. However, it is unclear whether the number of CV surgeon-scientists has concomitantly increased. With increasing numbers of CV neurosurgeons in the US workforce, the authors analyzed associated changes in National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Neurosurgery Research and Education Foundation (NREF) funding trends for CV surgeons over time.
METHODS: Publicly available data were collected on currently practicing academic CV surgeons in the US. Inflation-adjusted NIH funding between 2009 and 2021 was surveyed using NIH RePORTER and Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research data. The K12 Neurosurgeon Research Career Development Program and NREF grant data were queried for CV-focused grants. Pearson R correlation, chi-square analysis, and the Mann-Whitney U-test were used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: From 2009 to 2021, NIH funding increased: in total (p = 0.0318), to neurosurgeons (p < 0.0001), to CV research projects (p < 0.0001), and to CV surgeons (p = 0.0018). During this time period, there has been an increase in the total number of CV surgeons (p < 0.0001), the number of NIH-funded CV surgeons (p = 0.0034), and the percentage of CV surgeons with NIH funding (p = 0.370). Additionally, active NIH grant dollars per CV surgeon (p = 0.0398) and the number of NIH grants per CV surgeon (p = 0.4257) have increased. Nevertheless, CV surgeons have been awarded a decreasing proportion of the overall pool of neurosurgeon-awarded NIH grants during this time period (p = 0.3095). In addition, there has been a significant decrease in the number of K08, K12, and K23 career development awards granted to CV surgeons during this time period (p = 0.0024). There was also a significant decline in the proportion of K12 (p = 0.0044) and downtrend in early-career NREF (p = 0.8978) grant applications and grants awarded during this time period. Finally, NIH-funded CV surgeons were more likely to have completed residency less recently (p = 0.001) and less likely to have completed an endovascular fellowship (p = 0.044) as compared with non-NIH-funded CV surgeons.
CONCLUSIONS: The number of CV surgeons is increasing over time. While there has been a concomitant increase in the number of NIH-funded CV surgeons and the number of NIH grants awarded per CV surgeon in the past 12 years, there has also been a significant decrease in CV surgeons with K08, K12, and K23 career development awards and a downtrend in CV-focused K12 and early-career NREF applications and awarded grants. The latter findings suggest that the pipeline for future NIH-funded CV surgeons may be in decline.

UNASSIGNED: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) mobilized more than $4 billion in extramural funding for the COVID-19 pandemic. Assessing the research output from this effort is crucial to understanding how the scientific community leveraged federal funding and responded to this public health crisis.
UNASSIGNED: NIH-funded COVID-19 grants awarded between January 2020 and December 2021 were identified from NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results using the \"COVID-19 Response\" filter. PubMed identifications of publications under these grants were collected and the NIH iCite tool was used to determine citation counts and focus (eg, clinical, animal). iCite and the NIH\'s LitCOVID database were used to identify publications directly related to COVID-19. Publication titles and Medical Subject Heading terms were used as inputs to a machine learning-based model built to identify common topics/themes within the publications.
UNASSIGNED: We evaluated 2401 grants that resulted in 14 654 publications. The majority of these papers were published in peer-reviewed journals, though 483 were published to preprint servers. In total, 2764 (19%) papers were directly related to COVID-19 and generated 252 029 citations. These papers were mostly clinically focused (62%), followed by cell/molecular (32%), and animal focused (6%). Roughly 60% of preprint publications were cell/molecular-focused, compared with 26% of nonpreprint publications. The machine learning-based model identified the top 3 research topics to be clinical trials and outcomes research (8.5% of papers), coronavirus-related heart and lung damage (7.3%), and COVID-19 transmission/epidemiology (7.2%). This study provides key insights regarding how researchers leveraged federal funding to study the COVID-19 pandemic during its initial phase.

UNASSIGNED: Evaluating the National Institute\'s Health\'s (NIH\'s) response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic via grants and clinical trials is crucial to determining the impact they had on aiding US citizens. We determined how the NIH\'s funding for COVID-19 research was disbursed and used by various institutions across the United States.
UNASSIGNED: We queried NIH RePORTER and isolated COVID-19-related grants from January 2020 to December 2021. We analyzed grant type, geographical location, and awardee institution. Manuscripts published from these grants were quantitatively analyzed. COVID-19 clinical trials were mapped and distances from counties to clinical trial sites were calculated using ArcGis.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 2401 COVID-19 NIH grants resulted in 14 654 manuscripts from $4.2 billion and generated more than 150 000 citations. R01s make up 32% of grants (763/2401) and 8% of funding ($329 million). UM1 grants account for the majority of funding (30.8%; $1.3 Billion). Five states received 50.6% of funding: North Carolina, Washington, New York, California, and Massachusetts. Finally, of the 1806 clinical trials across 1266 sites in the United States, the majority were in metropolitan areas in close proximity to areas of high COVID-19 disease burden.
UNASSIGNED: Evaluating the outcome of the NIH\'s response to the COVID-19 pandemic is of interest to the general public. The present study finds that the NIH disbursed more than $4 billion in funding to large consortiums and clinical trials to develop diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines. Approximately 8% of funding was used for R01 grants. Clinical trial sites were generally located in areas of high COVID-19 burden.

OBJECTIVE: Bibliometrics, such as the Hirsch index (h-index) and the more recently developed relative citation ratio (RCR), are utilized to evaluate research productivity. Our study evaluates demographics, research productivity, and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding in academic otology.
METHODS: Academic otologists were identified, and their demographics were collected using institutional faculty profiles (N = 265). Funding data were obtained using the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Reports Database. The h-index was calculated using Scopus and mean (m-RCR) and weighted RCR (w-RCR) were calculated using the NIH iCite tool.
RESULTS: H-index (aOR 1.18, 95% CI 1.10-1.27, p < 0.001), but not m-RCR (aOR 1.50, 95% CI 0.97-2.31, p = 0.069) or w-RCR (aOR 1.00, 95% CI 0.99-1.00, p = 0.231), was associated with receiving NIH funding. Men had greater h-index (16 vs. 9, p < 0.001) and w-RCR (51.8 vs. 23.0, p < 0.001), but not m-RCR (1.3 vs. 1.3, p = 0.269) than women. Higher academic rank was associated with greater h-index and w-RCR (p < 0.001). Among assistant professors, men had greater h-index than women (9.0 vs. 8.0, p = 0.025). At career duration 11-20 years, men had greater h-index (14.0 vs. 8.0, p = 0.009) and w-RCR (52.7 vs. 25.8, p = 0.022) than women.
CONCLUSIONS: The h-index has a strong relationship with NIH funding in academic otology. Similar h-index, m-RCR, and w-RCR between men and women across most academic ranks and career durations suggests production of similarly impactful research. The m-RCR may correct some deficiencies of time-dependent bibliometrics and its consideration in academic promotion and research funding allocation may promote representation of women in otology.
METHODS: N/A Laryngoscope, 134:3786-3794, 2024.

In examining the influence of National Institute of Health (NIH) funding on gender distribution within dermatology leadership roles, a cross-sectional analysis of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) accredited dermatology residencies was conducted. The gender of leadership faculty was verified using online resources, while institutions were categorized by their 2022 NIH dermatology funding status. Results revealed that male dermatologists predominantly occupied department chair roles, whereas female dermatologists were more frequently found in associate program director roles, regardless of funding status. Notably, women held most program director positions in the top NIH-funded group, though this difference was not statistically significant due to a smaller sample size. The overall gender distribution has shown progress from 2021, with a significant rise in female associate program directors and a narrowing gender gap for chairs and program directors. Despite NIH funding rank playing a minimal role in gender distribution, our study underscores positive strides towards gender equality in dermatology leadership. Further advocacy for gender balance and additional research on underlying factors are essential for continued progress.

Purpose  The aim of the study is to investigate sex differences in academic rank, publication productivity, and National Institute of Health (NIH) funding among oculoplastic surgeons and whether there is an association between American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (ASOPRS) membership and scholarly output. Methods  Sex, residency graduation year, and academic rank were obtained from institutional websites of 113 U.S. ophthalmology programs. H-indices and m-quotients were obtained from the Scopus database. NIH funding information was obtained from the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool. Results  Of the 272 surgeons, 74 (30.2%) were females. When adjusted for career duration, differences in female to male proportions were only significant at the rank of assistant professor (assistant: 74.3 vs. 48.5%, p  = 0.047; associate: 18.9 vs. 24.6%, p  = 0.243; full professor: 13.0 vs. 37.2%, p  = 0.114). Women had a shorter career duration than men [10.0 (interquartile range or IQR 12.0) vs. 21.0 (IQR 20.0) years; p  < 0.001] and a lower h-index [4.0 (IQR 5.0) vs. 7.0 (IQR 10.0); p  < 0.001], but similar m-quotients [0.4 (IQR 0.4) vs. 0.4 (IQR 0.4); p  = 0.9890]. Among ASOPRS members, females had a lower h-index than males [5.0 (IQR 6.0) vs. 9.0 (IQR 10.0); p  < 0.001] due to career length differences. No difference in productivity between sexes was found among non-ASOPRS members. ASOPRS members from both sexes had higher scholarly output than their non-ASOPRS counterparts. Just 2.7% (2/74) of females compared with 5.3% (9/171) of males received NIH funding ( p  = 0.681). Conclusion  Sex differences in academic ranks and h-indices are likely due to the smaller proportion of females with long career durations. ASOPRS membership may confer opportunities for increased scholarly output.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is an essential source of funding for vascular surgeons conducting research. NIH funding is frequently used to benchmark institutional and individual research productivity, help determine eligibility for academic promotion, and as a measure of scientific quality. We sought to appraise the current scope of NIH funding to vascular surgeons by appraising the characteristics of NIH-funded investigators and projects. In addition, we also sought to determine whether funded grants addressed recent Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) research priorities.
In April 2022, we queried the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (RePORTER) database for active projects. We only included projects that had a vascular surgeon as a principal investigator. Grant characteristics were extracted from the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results database. Principal investigator demographics and academic background information were identified by searching institution profiles.
There were 55 active NIH awards given to 41 vascular surgeons. Only 1% (41/4037) of all vascular surgeons in the United States receive NIH funding. Funded vascular surgeons are an average of 16.3 years out of training; 37% (n = 15) are women. The majority of awards (58%; n = 32) were R01 grants. Among the active NIH-funded projects, 75% (n = 41) are basic or translational research projects, and 25% (n = 14) are clinical or health services research projects. Abdominal aortic aneurysm and peripheral arterial disease are the most commonly funded disease areas and together accounted for 54% (n = 30) of projects. Three SVS research priorities are not addressed by any of the current NIH-funded projects.
NIH funding of vascular surgeons is rare and predominantly consists of basic or translational science projects focused on abdominal aortic aneurysm and peripheral arterial disease research. Women are well-represented among funded vascular surgeons. Although the majority of SVS research priorities receive NIH funding, three SVS research priorities are yet to be addressed by NIH-funded projects. Future efforts should focus on increasing the number of vascular surgeons receiving NIH grants and ensuring all SVS research priorities receive NIH funding.

The excess mortality burden due to violent fatal injuries is an urgent public health issue for adolescents and young adults, especially those from racial and ethnic minority populations. We examined the research portfolio of the United States National Institutes of Health (NIH) related to violent fatal injuries between 2009 and 2019 to focus on adolescents and young adults from NIH-designated populations experiencing health disparities and to identify trends and research gaps. We analyzed funded projects by populations covered, geographic location of the study population, type of research (etiology, intervention, methodology), type of determinants, and publications generated. In 10 years, NIH funded 17 grants that produced 90 publications. Researchers used socioecological frameworks most to study violent crime, except in rural locations. Research gaps include the direct impact of violent crime among those victimized and health care (the least studied determinant) and premature mortality disparities caused by hate crimes.

暂无摘要。